this morning and I noticed the boilerplate non-discrimination note ended with ''.. or sexual orientation.'' 
      If the next President is a Republican, as I fervently hope, I wonder if he'll have the guts to reinstate DADT. I doubt it. He'd probably say something about fairness to those now serving, and pass.

I for one am delighted to know that our country's top university has decided not to descriminate in its search for the future leaders of america

I agree, it is a sign of the times and being gay does not mean you cannot be an excellent officer or serve in our military.  Who knows, this may even help our recruiting as our prior policy was overtly discriminatory. Gay people are everywhere, and if you have no gay friends or do not know of any, you are an Ostrich.

I have several gay friends, a few of which share the concern about the adverse affect that the repeal of DADT will have on the military. Why? A significant part of the glue that holds a military unit together is the "band of brothers" ethos -- an unconditional commitment to one another and love for each other. The underpinnings of this bond is the brotherly element -- a realization that the love is exclusively atruistic, and completely devoid of the potential for a sexual element (i.e. I can love one of my brothers in arms and express that affection, without being perceived as trying to "hit on them").

Once the potential for a sexual element is introduced, the barriers go up and that brotherly bond is undermined, if not destroyed. This same dynamic was introduced when women were allowed to serve in certain combat units (e.g. I observed women in attack helicopter units creating "emotional walls" around them and distance between men in the unit, to ensure that they didn't convey the perception that they were inviting sexual overtures from them). Without exception, the unit cohesion and effectiveness was undermined.

Consequently, anyone who thinks that this decision will not ultimately erode our war-fighting cohesion and capability is divorced from reality. For any students of history, I encourage you to study the impact that a pervasive homosexual culture had on Sparta. They went from one of the most lethal fighting forces of their time, to an inept and ineffective one in just a couple of generations -- all because their fellow warriors became lovers, instead of brothers.

I'm not sure what history books you have read ( I welcome the title(s)), but I have yet to read anything reputable from antiquity to modern times that states any civilization or military force collapsed due to homosexuality. If anything, the armies of the Achaean League that contributed to the defeat of Sparta had an even more pervasive homosexual culture than that which existed in Sparta. The vacuum left by the demise of the Spartans led to the rise of another culture, the Macedonians, in turn led by one of the most famous bi-sexuals in history, Alexander the Great (although he never conquered Sparta itself).

The most common reason pointed to for Sparta's demise was that following the defeats at Leuctra and Mantinea, the accumulated effects of continuous warfare had resulted in the loss of greater portions of land that were increasingly concentrated in the hands of large landholders, but the number of full citizens had declined. Citizens numbering 10,000 around the time Leonidas (of Thermopylae fame) was in charge had decreased by the middle of the 4th century BC to less than 1,000, and had further decreased to 700 by the time Agis IV was in charge in the middle of the 3rd century BC. The resulting cracks from the imbalance in its economic and class system became more pervasive and eventually the non-citizen caste (helots) eventually rebelled and Sparta lost much of its ability to make war or exert influence over Greece.

Eventually, the Romans under Lucius Mummius conquered Greece in the mid 2nd century BC and Sparta became nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Romans were another civilization that practiced extensive bi- and homo-sexuality. Their demise (at least in the western empire) in the 5th century AD resembled Sparta's except on a grander scale of economic failure and class system gone awry, but nothing I have read attributes their demise to sexual orientation either.

and I consider homosexuality immoral and sinful. I don't think it's predetermined either. I applaud those who  want to be cured and practitioners who do so. I fervently hope most stay in the closet, especially in sports (I'm thinking here of football and baseball. I don't care about the rest.) If too many pro or amateur athletes in the major team sports ''came out,'' I guarantee those sports would lose their popularity.

i personally do not care what anyone does in the privacy of his or her bedroom....thats the beauty of this country....its free and you can be what you want as long as it does not hurt anyone else.

I love you man!

No really.  

to the old notion that in public you musn't do anything to scare horses or small children, and I happen to know that both of those are scared s**tless by same-sex cavorting in public. Also by queers serving openly in the military.

Wow, devoid of a sane argument, you justify modern discrimination on a faulty history.  DADT is putting your head in the sand and I am sure your leadership skills inspired none of the gay soldiers of your command. To educate, train and inspire...

plain wrote: and I consider homosexuality immoral and sinful. I don't think it's predetermined either. I applaud those who  want to be cured and practitioners who do so. I fervently hope most stay in the closet, especially in sports (I'm thinking here of football and baseball. I don't care about the rest.) If too many pro or amateur athletes in the major team sports ''came out,'' I guarantee those sports would lose their popularity.

LOL!

I support DADT because I believe it was the best policy to protect gays who want to serve.  I support anyone of any orientation who wants to defend our freedoms.  I don't support gays being allowed to openly express their orientation amongst other soldiers because of a few reasons.  First, this is the military not your local social club.  There are rules and norms and disciplines that are all in place and designed to support a certain culture and that is a culture of war fighting.  Or let's be honest, in it's truest form it involves killing and being killed and it can be down right ugly.  There is nothing good about war or combat.  We have designed an Army to be the best in the world because of these norms and rules and regardless of where our country is headed culturally I'd argue that the Army is no place to have a cultural or social experiment.  It should be an exception to society and not a reflection of society.  In fact you could argue that an Army that is uniquely different from the society it protects may be essential to maintaining that said society because your Army is willing to go places and do things that the society would not and could not do on it's own.  And to having an Army that can fight together is based on trust and respect. This is without question undermined by allowing openly gay men and women to serve.  Which brings me to my second reason for supporting DADT.

I fully believe that gay soldiers could and would be fully competent in their roles in the military.  In fact I believe that many may, by definition, be better individual soldiers and leaders than many of those who have already or are currently serving.  I believe they would earn the respect, over time, of those around them.  Unfortunately, I don't believe that every one else would see it this way.  Even if 90% of our military was open minded about this subject I still believe that a gay soldier is at risk if there is any element of homophobia.  In other words DADT isn't about protecting the military from gays it's designed to protect the gays from the military.  It allows them to serve and execute the duties of their job and to be judged only on this aspect of who they are.  Removing DADT puts them now at risk of being exposed and discriminated against by any homophobes around them.  Obviously they have a choice now but again the military isn't about personal freedom and choice.  That is what they defend but not why they exist.  

Explain to me how we expect a male dominated force, where a majority of the men are 21 or younger and in the sexual prime of their lives and living in the most masculine of worlds with guns, weapons, high physical activity,  and where being tough is a valuable commodity, to accept someone who is viewed as less of a man because he is gay?  It's not the gays that have an issue.  It's the 18 year old who joined from shreveport, louisiana because he had no where to go and was brought up to believe that being gay was a disease or a punishment from god that we should be concerned about.  This is the person that DADT was designed for and quite frankly I'd argue that DADT was reverse discrimination that says that most in the military were incapable of dealing with someone who was gay.  

In the end I'm sure this will work out.  I'm not concerned that we are going to an all gay force and that Army Black and Gold will change to purple jumpsuits with gold highlight and pink berets.  I know a lot of gay people and many have no interest in the military.  Certainly what is portrayed on TV and in the media won't be the person who wants to serve.  I am concerned that the general population of the military is not ready for gays.  Who will be the first infantry soldier to "spoon" with the gay private when it's cold?  Who will be the first soldier to room with an openly gay man or woman?  Who will shower with them?  Who will listen to their stories about missing their lover while on deployment? I'm sure someone will but will the majority of a unit accept this person?  Will the gay soldier have enough time to demonstrate respect and competency in time to earn trust before he is PCS'd?  For many gays I'm certain they won't "flaunt" their sexual orientation.  In fact many will likely remain hidden and outside of combat units.  My fear is that if one gay soldier is at the wrong place at the wrong time it will be very bad for him/her and for our military.  

PD

The defense of DADT policy is weak at best and bigoted at worst both plainly evident in the posts above (no pun intended). Societal norms have changed dramatically over the last two decades.  Personally, I think its a sad commentary of present and past leaders in our armed forces that we cannot credit young professional soldiers with a level of tolerance that we ourselves cannot display.  

Coincidentally, I strongly believe that the same people pushing the anti gay, anti DADT opinion in our military are the same officers that overtly push their Christian values on their command, wanted or not.  I know I served under several "Holy Rollers" and their blatant attempt to espouse their religious views to the troops created a command climate difficult to manage at the junior officer level.  

Im glad that DADT is over.  I have no concern that the soldiers will by and large welcome and accept their gay peers into the ranks. There will always be outliers, but choosing the harder right over the easier wrong is one of the life long lessons I was taught at USMA and I am glad to see it is practice today.

a public issue, much less that same-sex practioners deserve any special legal protection.
      Race, religion, gender, et al, require protection from discrimination, since they are either conditions of birth or involve free speech or assemby. Same-sex people have somehow conned cheap politicians into entitlement to put their johnsons where they don't belong. Apples and oranges.
      It follows that liberal Democrats would try to appeal to those folks, since they comprise just another balkanized caucus for their politicians to cravenly pander to; just another sub-group, i.e.,the women's caucus, the black caucus, the Latino Caucus, and now the homosexual Caucus.
      I'm convinced that a century from now, historians will look back at American Civilization as having begun to lose its cohesion in the late 60's, when led by leftist intellectuals, the society began to fragment with too many Americans claiming Rights, whether mentioned in the Constitution or not, but too few accepting responsibilities, including the concept of the Greater Good. 
      Like most Americans, I couldn't care less what consenting adults do in private, but likewise, no one should be forced to accept public behavior they consider illicit. 
      

The fact that West Point is now using ultra-PC language in its disclaimers is a bit disheartening (enough of this "sexual orientation" nonsense), but ultimately I don't think the presence of gays in the military will have a negative effect on it. They were always there to begin with, and most of those already in are still going to be reluctant to come out based on the backlash they'd receive from their fellow soldiers. Forget the service - most gays schlepping around at 9 to 5 civilian jobs are uncomfortable letting their co-workers know about their personal lives out of fear of being viewed differently or snickered about behind their back. The only difference is they won't be kicked out or face official reprimand if word about their sexuality gets out. I'm sure you'll get a few super-militant ones come out of the closet, push the advocacy envelope as far as they can, and do their best to make everyone in the service hate gay people, but for the most part I figure the status quo won't be upset too dramatically.

I don't believe that gay people are America-hating fifth columnists who want to destroy our sacred institutions like the military from within (aside from Bradley Manning). Most of them signed up because they want to put their head down and serve their country like everybody else. Who somebody is screwing is the last thing on anybody's mind in combat. If gay men who are physically and mentally qualified to serve would rather wear a uniform and fight for their country than cavort about Greenwich Village or Castro all day in drag high on drugs then I'd call it a huge leap in the right direction and testament to the fact that the gay community is becoming a respectable minority in America instead of the deviant counterculture it used to be.

I agree that DADT was the best policy. I believe with the new policy there will be gays likely killed in the military for their sexual orientation as there already have been some with DADT. Don't want that to happen but I know it's going to; just watch. The good thing about DADT was that you didn't really know who was gay, you might have suspected someone was but you didn't really know for sure. That policy was good for both parties concerned.

I also agree the earlier writer who said that no one gives a damn what you do in bed when the bullets are flying. But it's when the bullets aren't flying (99 percent of the time) that worries me. Gays... and straights will die and not just in combat. Within a year of this policy taking affect there will be a couple of incidents of deaths because of the new policy.

OlBarn wrote:
Former Naval Academt Instructor... 
http://www.examiner.com/headli...le-city-heights

No comment yet...
http://news.yahoo.com/two-navy...-001737290.html

What's your point here? The first article is almost a year old. Are we going to pretend that there's never been a heterosexual murder/suicide?

As for the second one, I really hope you're not trying to imply anything here. Two Navy pilot roommates were killed along with the sister of one of the pilots and an unidentified male. What's your point in mentioning this tragedy on a thread talking about DADT repeal?